2. Where was Paul raised and educated?

In Jerusalem. In Acts 22:3, Paul gives a bit more information about his background:

"I am a Jew, born at Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city [Jerusalem] at the feet of Gamaliel, educated according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God as you all are this day."

Gamaliel was a famous Jewish teacher. So famous, in fact, that we know about him today from Jewish sources.

Gamaliel is also mentioned in Acts, where he takes an open-minded view of Christianity, urging that it not be persecuted (Acts 5:34-42). Paul did not agree with him at this time, because this was before Paul's great persecution of the Church, as well as before his conversion.

3. If he was born in Tarsus and brought up in Jerusalem, what was Paul's citizenship?

Over the course of his life, Paul probably had multiple citizenships, some of them simultaneously.

In the ancient world, a citizen was a person who had special legal privileges from belonging to a particular city. That's where the word "citizen" comes from.

Today we think of citizenship as indicating the nation-state to which a person belongs, but in the ancient world it originally referred to cities.

When he was born, St. Paul may have been a legal citizen of Tarsus, and later he may have been a legal citizen of Jerusalem. But there is another city that we know for a fact he was a citizen of: Rome.

This was not a common thing. Most of the people who were subjects of the Roman Empire were not citizens of the city of Rome. St. Paul was, even though he was a Jew born in Turkey.

This was because the Romans had a policy of allowing people--even foreigners--to become citizens of Rome to encourage engagement with and loyalty to Rome.

Citizenship could be gained by a number of means, including inheriting it from one of your ancestors. This was the case with St. Paul, which was very fortunate for him.

In Acts 22 we read:

[27] So the tribune came and said to [Paul], "Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?" And he said, "Yes." [28] The tribune answered, "I bought this citizenship for a large sum." Paul said, "But I was born a citizen."

4. Why is Paul's Roman citizenship important?

Roman citizens had special legal rights in the Roman Empire. You couldn't treat them like ordinary people. In particular, you had to respect their special rights in legal proceedings.

This is reflected in what happens to Paul in Acts 22:

[24] the tribune commanded [Paul] to be brought into the barracks, and ordered him to be examined by scourging, to find out why [the men of Jerusalem] shouted thus against him. [25] But when they had tied him up with the thongs, Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, "Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman citizen, and uncondemned?" [26] When the centurion heard that, he went to the tribune and said to him, "What are you about to do? For this man is a Roman citizen."

When Paul confirms that he is a Roman citizen, the tribune's attitude changes:

[29] So those who were about to examine him withdrew from him instantly; and the tribune also was afraid, for he realized that Paul was a Roman citizen and that he had bound him.

Although he had been long delayed in visiting the city (Romans 1:8-15), the special rights he had as a Roman citizen led to St. Paul finally coming to Rome.

5. Why did St. Paul's citizenship lead to him finally coming to Rome?

One of the rights that Roman citizenship conferred was to have your case tried directly before Caesar, and so one of the turning points in the book of Acts is found in chapter 25, where we read:

[9] But Festus, wishing to do the Jews a favor, said to Paul, "Do you wish to go up to Jerusalem, and there be tried on these charges before me?" [10] But Paul said, "I am standing before Caesar's tribunal, where I ought to be tried; to the Jews I have done no wrong, as you know very well. [11] If then I am a wrongdoer, and have committed anything for which I deserve to die, I do not seek to escape death; but if there is nothing in their charges against me, no one can give me up to them. I appeal to Caesar." [12] Then Festus, when he had conferred with his council, answered, "You have appealed to Caesar; to Caesar you shall go."

The Caesar at the time was Nero, and--although we have reason to think that Paul was released after his first trial before Nero--he eventually fell afoul of the cruel dictator, who ordered him beheaded. He was buried on the Appian Road (where the Basilica of St. Paul-outside-the-walls is now).

It is thought that St. Paul's status as a Roman citizen is what spared him the fate that St. Peter suffered. St. Peter was crucified, but this was a fate so cruel that it could not be imposed on Roman citizens (taking hours to accomplish), and so St. Paul was beheaded, swiftly and comparatively less painfully.

6. Is St. Paul's name "change" significant?

Not as much as you'd think. We're used to people in the Bible having dramatic, really significant name changes, like when Abram becomes Abraham, Jacob becomes Israel, or Simon becomes Peter.

St. Paul's name was basically a practical affair. In Aramaic, his name was Sha'ul, but he needed to work with Greeks. Greek doesn't have the sh- sound, so Greeks wouldn't have been able to pronounce his birth name.

That's why in the Greek New Testament, he's referred to as both Saul (Saulos) and Paul (Paulos). They're forms of his Jewish name that get rid of the troublesome initial sound and replace it with something more friendly to the Greek tongue (as well as adding a Greek ending -os).

It's like when someone from China who works in America picks a name that's easier for English-speakers to pronounce.

Thus his alternate name--not really a name "change"--is introduced without much fanfare in the middle of a verse:

But Saul, who is also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him [Acts 13:9].

7. Do the accounts of St. Paul's conversion contradict each other?

Not really. The conversion of St. Paul is recounted three times in Acts--chapters 2, 22, and 26. Sometimes people accuse these of contradicting each other based on what they say about what Paul's companions perceived during the event, according to the first two accounts:

Acts 9

[7] The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.

Acts 22

[9] Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me.

The seeming contradiction here is an artifact of the English translation. It's not there in the Greek. Without going into the grammatical details, Greek makes a distinction between different ways of hearing--mere perception of the sound vs. understanding it.

That's what's happening here: The men with Paul heard the voice but didn't understand what was being said.

8. What key teaching of St. Paul goes back to his first encounter with Christ?

One of St. Paul's major themes in his letters is the idea of the Church as the mystical Body of Christ.

This theme is a uniquely Pauline theme.

It also seems echoed in Christ's very first words to Paul:

"Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" [Acts 9:4].

Thus far, Paul has been persecuting individual Christians--members of Christ's Church--but Jesus identifies with them in such a way that he says Paul is persecuting him.

Paul's later reflection no the first words Jesus spoke to him may have led him to understand the Church as Christ's mystical body.

Comments

Very good Jimmy! This article was in good timing for me the last week I read all of Pauls letters again : ) I have also been asking him for his prayers while continuing to learn all about Paul and his wonderful faith in the Lord and what he has done to help establish the Church along with Peter and the rest. Keep up the good work!

Posted by Nick from Detroit on Friday, Jan 25, 2013 11:43 AM (EST):

“Ask him yourself.”
[Sigh] Oh man, don’t hit me with them negative waves this early in the morning, baby.
Always with the negative waves, Howard, always with the negative waves!
Why don’t you knock it off with those negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change? (Ha-ha!)“Perhaps to indicate that [...].”
If I may quote a great mind?Maybe.
God Bless!

Posted by Geo Caley on Friday, Jan 25, 2013 2:50 AM (EST):

Of all the places where Paul first preached Christ, MALTA may be one of the few places (if not the only place) where Christianity is still prevalent!

Posted by Nick from Detroit on Thursday, Jan 24, 2013 11:33 PM (EST):

“Ask him yourself.”
[Sigh] Oh man, don’t hit me with them negative waves so late at night, baby.
Always with the negative waves, Howard, always with the negative waves!
Why don’t you knock it off with those negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change? (Ha-ha!)“Perhaps to indicate that [...].”
If I may quote a great mind?Maybe.
God Bless!

Posted by Howard on Thursday, Jan 24, 2013 10:10 PM (EST):

Why did St. Luke mention that it was mid-day? Ask him yourself. Perhaps to indicate that this was NOT the glare of a low sun near sunrise or sunset, or the kind of glow that sometimes accompanies such weather. In other words, “mid-day” may be there to emphasize that this was not a natural phenomenon. Or maybe it is an allusion to the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard in Matthew 20: St. Paul was not among the Twelve or the Seventy—those first called—but many others would be called after him. Either of these seem as likely to me as, “The readers would all know that every Jew prays at mid-day, so this means the apparition occurred during prayer.”

Posted by Nick from Detroit on Thursday, Jan 24, 2013 5:05 PM (EST):

Howard,What’s with all the negative waves?
Did you read what I wrote in the Fr. Longenecker’s thread? I didn’t claim that there was no horse.“What is mentioned is that they FELL to the ground.”
Yes, and it is also mentioned that it was mid-day. Why? Saint Luke must have had a reason to record that detail, no? Dr. Marshall is more knowledgeable than I am about such things, so, I defer to him. Do you have evidence that first century Pharisaic Jews didn’t pray 3 times a day, according to Psalm 55?
God Bless!

Posted by Nick from Detroit on Thursday, Jan 24, 2013 4:51 PM (EST):

Kathleen,“But would Jews fall on the ground to pray back then on a regular basis or only under certain circumstances?”
Not according to Dr. Marshal. He explains that Paul and his party would have been standing, facing Jerusalem, reciting the prayers. They fell on the ground because of the “light from heaven.” Please, read his article. It explains it much better than I am able.

Posted by Kathleen on Thursday, Jan 24, 2013 4:49 PM (EST):

Rob B.,
Good point, thanks!

Posted by Rob B. on Thursday, Jan 24, 2013 4:28 PM (EST):

@Kathleen,

I’m not an expert, but he was going to Damascus on official business to arrest the Christians. Since he needed to get there before they did, I don’t think that it’s unfair to say that he might have been given a horse to speed him on his way.

Posted by Howard on Thursday, Jan 24, 2013 3:28 PM (EST):

@Nick: Maybe. So the horse wasn’t there because it isn’t mentioned, but the prayer, which also isn’t mentioned, MUST have been there? What is mentioned is that they FELL to the ground. Maybe that is an exaggeration, of course, and all it means is that they prostrated themselves, though no mention is made of the others having seen the light; they only heard the voice. Frankly, this fits in every bit as well with the traditional view that he was travelling at the time as with the idea that he had stopped to pray.

I find it really tiresome when people keep saying, “Look, your traditional understanding of this scene is wrong, because it includes some elements at most hinted at in Scripture. You should instead adopt my understanding, which includes some elements at most hinted at in Scripture.”

Posted by Kathleen on Thursday, Jan 24, 2013 2:41 PM (EST):

Nick from Detroit ,
Thank you very much. I hadn’t considered that explanation.But would Jews fall on the ground to pray back then on a regular basis or only under certain circumstances? (My knowledge of 1st century Jewish practise is minimal.)
Thanks again & God bless!

Posted by Nick from Detroit on Thursday, Jan 24, 2013 1:42 PM (EST):

To Robyn & Kathleen,
For one possible answer, see my comment on Fr. Dwight Longenecker’s recent article:
http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/the-constant-conversion-of-st.-paul/
(I would also love to read Mr. Akin’s thoughts on this, by the way.)
God Bless!

Posted by Kathleen on Thursday, Jan 24, 2013 12:13 PM (EST):

I actually would like to know if St. Paul rode (any type of critter) or did he walk to Damascus? Which,considering the period, culture, & his station in life, would be more likely?
Thanks!

Posted by mgbeahuruike John on Thursday, Jan 24, 2013 10:58 AM (EST):

I wish to thank you for the good work you are doing. May God strengthen you. Thanks!

Posted by BlueMit11 on Thursday, Jan 24, 2013 10:42 AM (EST):

I thought it was an Accord? And in order to make his way around the Ancient World he spoke to the pharisees and asked them where they rented their Garmins.

I should add that a small but significant minority are of the opinion he was riding an ostrich.

Posted by Howard on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2013 8:20 PM (EST):

Modern biblical scholars are nearly unanimous that Saul was riding an elephant, since no horse is mentioned in the passage.

Posted by Robyn on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2013 7:58 PM (EST):

Aw, you could have made it nine items (like some of your other recent “need to know” pieces) if you’d included the bit about there being no Scriptural evidence that he was knocked off a horse on the way to Damascus. Knocked to the ground, but there’s no mention of horses.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.

About Jimmy Akin

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant pastor or seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith. Eventually, he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is a Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to This Rock magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."